Interpreting Galatians 1:13-17 (3 possible readings)

[rgprice]

I've been stuck on this passage for a long time. Try as I might, I still can't fully make sense of it, but also think it is key to understanding the origins of the Pauline letters and worship of Jesus. I've previously written about this here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8637

13 You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the assembly of God and was trying to destroy it. 14 I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. 15 But when the one who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the gentiles, I did not confer with any human, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterward I returned to Damascus.

All of the reconstructions of Marcion's letters include the statement that Paul was persecuting the assembly in v13.

On the face of it, this statement seems not to make much sense. Hence I've argued that v 13 should instead be read, "For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how fervently followed the assembly of God."

Most modern English Bibles translate this, "I was violently persecuting the church of God," but this is anachronistic, as there was no such thing as a "church" at this time and no word that distinguished between a body of "Christians" and "Jews", i.e. church vs synagogue, etc. The word used in Greek is ekklēsia, which is simply assembly. And the term "assembly of God" was used by Philo and other Jews to refer to bodies of Jewish worshipers of the Jewish God.

So anyone reading this letter in the 1st or 2nd century would have read this as Paul saying:
"You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the Jewish assembly of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors."

This is a very confusing statement. But the term "assembly of God" could be read here as the temple priesthood.

"You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the Jewish priesthood and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors."

This could mean that Paul was so zealous for his ancestral traditions that he rejected what the assembly or possibly Sanhedrin had become. He saw the Jewish leaders as traitors to Judaism.

Using a slightly different translation here (NASB vs NRSV):
"But when He who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus."

The "mother's womb" is important here. Here I take "mother's womb" to be a metaphor for the Judaism of his youth. This could be read as saying, "God had separated me from the Jewish nation and made a separate covenant with me. When he was pleased with me he revealed His Son through me so that I could reveal him to the Gentiles."

The term "reveal" is also important here, because this indicates that Paul was the first person to know the Son. I'm not sure if the Greek supports this reading, but in this translation that's how I read it. "reveal His Son in me" indicates that it was through Paul that the Son was made known to the world.

But I will admit that not even this is fully satisfactory. I struggle really to find any reading of Gal 1:13-17 that is satisfactory. I see three possible readings, none of which are without some problem:

1) (Traditional reading)
You have heard that I was a devout Jew. I violently persecuted the followers of Jesus and tried to destroy them. I was more advanced in my Jewish studies than other youths because I yearned for the traditions of my ancestors. But God had a special plan for me from the time I was born, and once he revealed his son Jesus to me so that I could preach him to the Gentiles...
2) (Proposed misreading and interpolation)
You have heard that I was a devout Jew who I obsessively attended synagogue. I was more advanced in my Jewish studies than other youths because I yearned for the traditions of my ancestors. Once I advanced beyond the simple Judaism of my youth he revealed his son Jesus to me so that I could preach him to the Gentiles...
3) (Persecution of his own people)
You have heard of my conflicts with Jewish leadership. I was violently persecuting the Jewish priesthood and trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. God had separated me from the simple Judaism of my youth and made a separate covenant with me, and once he was pleased with me he revealed his son Jesus to me so that I could preach him to the Gentiles...

So I see these three possible readings. Each have their own problems. I'm not entirely satisfied with any of them.

IMO, v13 and v14 both imply that Paul is talking about his youth. Both options 1 and 3 imply, then, that Paul is talking about persecuting and trying to destroy something while a youth. This seems unlikely. V13a and v14 imply that Paul is talking about his religious studies as a youth. Here, it seems to me that reading #2 makes the most sense. "You heard I was a child prodigy of Jewish studies. I was extremely devoted to the synagogue. I advanced in my studies beyond my peers." That series of thoughts is coherent and perhaps sets up the next possible reading of, "Once I advanced beyond the simple Judaism of my youth he revealed his son Jesus to me." So here v13-14 would be used to establish why God revealed his son to him as opposed to anyone else. God revealed his son Jesus to Paul because he was so advanced in his studies of Judaism that he had gone beyond the traditional understanding of the scriptures. Here the assemblies that are "In Christ" can be understood as congregations of Jews who have taken to an "advanced reading" of the scriptures that goes beyond what was condoned by the temple priesthood.

That's all well and good and sounds like it makes sense, BUT it requires that several parts of Galatians 1, including parts of v13, be interpolations.

But what about reading #3? This provides a more coherent reading of v13 and seems to make several other aspects of Paul's biography make sense, but it doesn't fit well with v14. The term "assembly of God" would absolutely have been read by Jews at the time as meaning Jewish worshipers, not "Christians". The "assembly of God" could mean "Jewish nation", "the Jewish priesthood", a specific Jewish congregation. But in no way does the term "assembly of God" have a distinction that would have meant "Christians". So maybe Paul is talking about his opposition to the Jewish priesthood. This would explain why he was constantly in conflict with various leaders. It would also explain why he didn't do immediately to Jerusalem. He avoided Jerusalem for some time because he was unwelcome there due to his reputation as a trouble maker. He didn't show his face there for three years to let things settle down.

Such a reading would not be out of line with much of the Qumranic material. The DSS contains many works by devout Jews who see themselves as in conflict with the Jewish priesthood. And clearly Paul's teachings are in conflict with the Jewish priesthood. He opposes circumcision and the law. The revelation of Jesus to Paul then seems to have brought Paul around to accepting "a truce" with Jewish leadership, though he maintained disagreements. This does seem to make several other elements of Galatians make more sense.

But what about going back to #1? Here, v13b seems to be entirely out of context. What does it have to do with any of the surrounding material? And why would anyone have read "assembly of God" to mean "Jesus worshipers"? In no way was that term uniquely identified with the worship of Jesus. It also seems that the traditional reading of v13 is entirely reliant upon assumptions about the state of Jesus worship during Paul's time that are absolutely not in evidence. This implies a state of affairs in which Jews were at that time involved in some kind of open repressions against followers of Jesus. It imagines an environment conjured by the Gospels, in which Jesus was crucified in a big public spectacle that was widely known and that following his death there was some sort of widespread manhunt going on directed by Jewish leaders to hunt down all of the threatening followers of this popular messiah, and that Paul had been caught up in this and was a part of it. But, such a scenario is entirely unsupported by anything other than Christian fantasy. So barring that delusion, how could this reading make any sense?

So anyway, I'm not at three possible readings of this passage, but I don't find any of them entirely satisfactory.

[rgprice]

Now that I think about it, reading #3 could be in line with "Roman provenance". It could point to the following meaning:

"I was a devout Jew. The Jewish leadership had become corrupted by the Romans, so as a devout Jew I was opposed to the priesthood that had become corrupted by the Romans and vowed to destroy them. However, "Jesus was revealed to me" and I had a change of heart, so I decided to become an advocate for this new form of Gentile friendly Judaism that was supported by the Romans."

As much as I've kept my distance from "Roman provenance", and still disagree with many claims made by its advocates, I concede that this is a possible reading. And interestingly, this reading sort of brings #1 and #3 into alignment.

[dbz]

Paul was persecuting the assembly in v13.

On the face of it, this statement seems not to make much sense. Hence I've argued that v 13 should instead be read, "For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how fervently followed the assembly of God."

"the assembly of God" could be,

• temple cult Sadducees
• anti-temple Jewish sect
• gnostic sect, i.e. Hellenized Jews who created a religious syncretism of Jewish and Greek: religions; philosophy; mysticism

[rgprice]

Ok, rethinking this even more in a way that makes Galatians 1 make sense, and possibly sheds significant light on the origins of Jesus worship.

13 For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when He who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.

18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him for fifteen days. 19 But I did not see another one of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which are in Christ; 23 but they only kept hearing, “The man who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.

So what the hell is this really talking about?

Here is a possible way to read this that might actually make some sense and fits into the context of the Jewish-Roman War. The "assembly of God" that Paul is talking about here is actually a strain of relaxed Judaism that didn't adhere to the Law and possibly did not require circumcision. We are talking about some period in which Palestine and Jerusalem was under Roman governance and likely many Jews were "falling away" from the strictures of Mosaic Judaism. There was likely at this time some hostility between "orthodox Jews" and "reformed Jews" to use two highly anachronistic terms. Paul is referring to the "reformed Jews" as the "assembly of God". These "reformed Jews" were likely pervasive in Palestine and Jerusalem. They were tolerated, though looked down on by "zealous Jews" like Paul (and the Zealots). We are now seeing a repeat of the circumstances described in Maccabees of a split between "Mosaic Jews" and "Hellenizing Jews".

The "assemblies of Judea which are in Christ" describes many congregations that had adopted this Roman friendly version of Judaism, which Paul, as a "zealous Jews", had been opposed to. So it sounds like Paul is saying that he himself was once a "Zealot" who, because of his devoutness opposed the spread of this more liberal Hellenized/Romanized version of Judaism. But, he had a revelation and gave up his adherence to "the Law" in favor of this more liberal version of Judaism that he once opposed. Paul's revelation was that instead of seeing what was happening as a "Romanization of Judaism" that was diluting Judaism, he saw that this more liberal form of Judaism was also more acceptable to Gentiles and thus it was a way to spread belief in the Jewish God to non-Jews. So once he realized that this could be a gateway to converting more people to the worship of the God that he loved, he got on board.

But the condition Paul is describing is not one of secretive underground worshipers of Jesus, rather it is more like "liberals" vs "conservatives", where the "assemblies in Christ" are a liberal cultural wave moving through Jewish society that some Jewish conservatives are opposed to.

Now what about being "in Christ"? What does this mean? I think what it may have meant in this context is that this was a version of Judaism that was no longer seeking a human military messiah. This is a de-fanged version of Judaism that was not militant and didn't seek the restoration of a Jewish state. That they were "in Christ" meant that they viewed messianic prophecy as having already been fulfilled in a spiritual way, so they were not looking for a coming human military leader.

But none of this had anything to do with any specific real event like a ministry of someone named Jesus who was literally crucified, this was a cultural wave that Jewish zealots were fighting against. This cultural wave is likely the same cultural shift that led to the Jewish-Roman War when zealots like Paul had had enough and wanted to push back.

Tis understanding again essentially splits the difference between reading 1 & 3 proposed in the OP.

[dbz]

"the assembly of God" could be,

• gnostic sect, i.e. Hellenized Jews who created a religious syncretism of Jewish and Greek: religions; philosophy; mysticism

Per religious syncretism of Jewish and Greek.

[M]any Second Temple Jewish texts, including the writings of Philo of Alexandria, mention eschatological concepts developed in a Greco-Roman context. Significant among these are the many references to the Greco-Roman subterranean prison of Tartarus and the related mythology of the Titans and Giants. What are we to make of these references to Hellenistic mythology within Jewish works?
[...]
The evidence from Philo of Alexandria's use of Tartarus supports the view that his eschatology was influenced by Greco-Roman culture. He confirms the established taxonomy of the environment, location, and function of Tatarus. Some of this imagery was available to Philo in texts of the LXX (e. g., Prov 30:16; Job 40:20; 41:24). However the language Philo uses in association with Tartarus, especially the claim that people are pulled downward into it (Praem. 152), suggests his dependence upon Greco-Roman authors. But Philo does not seem to have consciously adopted the Giants of Greco-Roman mythology into his religious ideology. Rather, when he does discuss the Giants, he attempts to distance the Genesis tradition from that of Greco-Roman mythology.

[Conclusion]
This survey of literary and non-literary sources demonstrates that a sizable number of the inhabitants of the Greco-Roman world, including a company of Jews, accepted, or were at least familiar with, the mythology of Tartarus and the Titans and Giants. These myths were not a part of Persian culture, so their appearance in the culture of Second Temple Judaism requires further explanation than the influence of Persian eschatology on the Jewish tradition can support. The most probable and least problematic solution for the number of appearances of Greco-Roman eschatological concepts within Second Temple Judaism is thus found in the Greco-Roman cultural context in which these Second Temple Jewish traditions developed.

(pp. 352, 377–378)

---

Burnett, Clint (2013). "Going Through Hell; ΤΑΡΤΑΡΟΣ in Greco-Roman Culture, Second Temple Judaism, and Philo of Alexandria". Journal of Ancient Judaism. 4 (3): 352–378. doi:10.30965/21967954-00403004.

Philo, writing in first-century ce Alexandria for an audience of Jews devoted to the Bible, uses the idea of the Logos as if it were a commonplace. His writings make apparent that at least for some pre-Christian Judaism, there was nothing strange about a doctrine of a manifestation of God, even as a “second God”; the Logos did not conflict with Philo’s idea of monotheism.

---

--Godfrey, Neil (26 February 2019). "Logos, a Jewish Word". Vridar.

Walsh argues that Paul's native tongue/first language is Greek and that he uses “middle platonic” philosophy. Cf. Walsh, Robyn Faith (2021). The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-83530-5. (Middle Platonism & Paul the Apostle: pp. 7, 126, 192)

[The] sect outside the Roman Empire that preached Christ was stoned and then crucified, by the Jews (OHJ, Ch. 8.1; which Paul could be referring to, as he is sufficiently vague) could be more original than the souped up version invented possibly by Mark that has the Romans do it in collusion with the Jews.

Other than that, there probably were pre-Christian sects (one of which probably became Christian, by novel revelation) that did revere the archangel Jesus and probably even taught he would be the coming messiah, but had not yet come to the conclusion that he’d died to effect his plans, thus had already initiated the end times timetable. There are hints in the Dead Sea Scrolls that the sect(s) represented there did have some such view (and may even have written up pesher prophecies of that angel’s future planned death). But we don’t know that for sure, we don’t know if the only such sect simply became Christianity, we don’t know if any members of that sect protested the revelation and stuck to the original timetable and thus broke away, we don’t know if there were other sects never impacted by the revelation who continued preaching their own thing. Paul does say there were sects preaching “another Jesus” whom the Christians should shun. So those could have been any of the above, for example.
[...]
there could well have been sects still revering or expecting the Jesus angel as not having died, and who (like possibly Philo) thought it absurd that he would ever do so, and/or who (like possibly the Qumran sect) thought it was not time yet for it to happen, who were competing with Christian sects. They could be the “other Jesus’s” Paul talks about. But we sadly just don’t know.

---

Comment by Richard Carrier—23 May 2018—per "Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus". Richard Carrier Blogs. 26 April 2018.

...per the origin of Jewish worship of a pre-christian Jesus archangel.

• Understanding the first ten elements of OHJ is the first step to answer the questions.

Background Elements to Christianity

• Element 1 The earliest form of Christianity definitely known to us originated as a Jewish sect in the region of Syria-Palestine in the early first century CE. (pp. 65-6)
• Element 2 When Christianity began Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse. (p. 66)
• Element 3 (a) When Christianity began, many Jews had long been expecting a messiah: a divinely chosen leader or saviour anointed … to help usher in God’s supernatural kingdom, usually (but not always) by subjugating or destroying the enemies of the Jews and establishing an eternal paradise.
  (b) If these enemies were spiritual powers, the messianic victory would have been spiritual; or both, as in the Enochic literature.
  (c) Jewish messianic expectations were widespread, influential and very diverse. (pp. 66-7)
• Element 4 (a) Palestine in the early first century CE was experiencing a rash of messianism. There was an evident clamoring of sects and individuals to announce they had found the messiah.
  (b) Christianity’s emergence at this time was therefore no accident. It was part of the zeitgeist.
  (c) Christianity’s long-term success may have been simply a product of natural selection. (pp. 67-73)
• Element 5 Even before Christianity arose some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end-times would be killed before the final victory. (pp. 73-81)
• Element 6 The suffering-and-dying servant of Isaiah 52-53 and the messiah of Daniel 9 have numerous logical connections with the “Jesus/Joshua Rising” figure in Zechariah 3 and 6. (pp. 81-83)
• Element 7 (a) The pre-Christian book of Daniel was a key messianic text, laying out what would happen and when, partly inspiring much of the messianic fervour of the age.
  (b) The text was widely known and widely influential, widely regarded as scripture by early Christians. (pp. 83-87)
• Element 8 (a) Many messianic Jewish sects were searching the (Hebrew and Greek) scriptures for secret messages.
  (b) It follows that the Jews who became the first Christians had been searching the scriptures this way this long before they became Christians. (pp. 87-88)
• Element 9 The early first century concept of scriptures embraced not only writings that became canonized but many more works, many of which no longer exist; further, of those that do still exist, including canonical texts, the early first century versions were sometimes quite different in details. Texts in places were been modified, changed, before their canonical versions were finally settled. (p. 88-92)
• Element 10 Christianity began as a Jewish messianic cult preaching a spiritually victorious messiah. (pp. 92-96)

---

"On the Historicity of Jesus". RationalWiki. Retrieved 31 August 2023.

Additional conclusions may be drawn from the possibility that some Jews held that said Jesus accompanied Moses or was in fact Moses on Earth.

[GakuseiDon]

But the condition Paul is describing is not one of secretive underground worshipers of Jesus, rather it is more like "liberals" vs "conservatives", where the "assemblies in Christ" are a liberal cultural wave moving through Jewish society that some Jewish conservatives are opposed to.

Yes, I think that's right. Also like "fundamentalists" vs "liberal Christians", or Catholics and the first Protestants.

For Paul, there are those who walk "according to the flesh" and those who walk "according to the spirit":

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death...
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit [do] the things of the Spirit.
...
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Paul's "churches of God in Christ" emphasized a "walking in the Spirit" Judaism (whatever that meant) against the more "walking in the flesh" traditional law-based Judaism. Paul refers to "churches/assemblies" more than 40 times in his letters, all apparently referring to the "walking in the Spirit" churches.

So I think that makes it clear what Paul is saying in Gal 1:

Gal 1:

[13] For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
[14] And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
[15] But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
[16] To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

1. Paul persecuted the "walking in the Spirit" groups, because:
2. Paul was "exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers"
3. But Paul was destined from his beginning to be called to grace
4. By God revealing Christ in Paul, thus Paul now walks "in the Spirit of God" -- just like those in "the churches of God" -- in order to convert the Gentiles

But none of this had anything to do with any specific real event like a ministry of someone named Jesus who was literally crucified, this was a cultural wave that Jewish zealots were fighting against. This cultural wave is likely the same cultural shift that led to the Jewish-Roman War when zealots like Paul had had enough and wanted to push back.

Personally I see it about power and money. The Jerusalem Temple brought in a lot of money and so anything that negatively affected that would have been a problem. If the "churches of God" were teaching that the correct Judaism is following the "Spirit of God" rather than the traditional beliefs of the group in power, then that would have caused conflicts. Much like how Catholicism reacted to the first Protestants.

[GakuseiDon]

Just as an aside, here are some of the examples of Paul's use of "ekklēsia", translated as "church" below:

Rom 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

1 Cor 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

1 Cor 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

1 Cor 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

1 Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

1 Cor 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.

1 Cor 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

2 Co 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia

Gal 1:22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

It looks like when Paul uses the word "ekklēsia" he is using it to mean his "church of God" sect. Sometimes he gives locations, for example tthe churches of the Gentiles", "the churches of Judea", "the churches of Asia", etc. Other times he just uses "churches", but it seems clear he is talking about his own sect.

1 Cor 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

Gal 1:22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

So, whether or not "ekklēsia" was used by non-Christians, Paul appears to use it particularly for his own group.

[Stuart]

Actually in several Marcionite reconstructions, including Detering and also my own, verses 1:13-14 are not part of the reconstruction.

My interlinear reads like this:

Πρὸς Γαλατας
To the Galatians
1:1 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος οὐκ ἀπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι᾽ ἀνθρώπου
Paul an Apostle not from men nor through man
ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτόν ἐκ νεkρῶν,[ The omission of καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς is testified to by Tertullian: Tertullian, AM 5.1.3: Ipse se, inquit, apostolum est professus et quidem non ab hominibus nec per hominem, sed per Jesum Christum. That Marcion read αὑτόν instead of αὐτὸν, which is confirmed explicitly by Origen, Commentary on Galatians PL 26. ]
but through Jesus Christ who raised himself from the dead
1:2 καὶ οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας
And all~ those~ brothers~ with~ me to the churches of Galatia:
1:3 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
Grace to you and peace from God our father and (the) Lord Jesus Christ.
1:6 Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε
I marvel that you are so quickly turning (away)
ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον,
from the one having called you by (his) grace to another Gospel,
1:7 οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο [κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου], εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς
There is not another [according to my Gospel], except there are those agitating you
καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιόν τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
and desiring to change to another Gospel of Christ
1:8 ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίσηται
But even if we or an angel from heaven preaches a Gospel
παρ᾽ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.
contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be cursed.
1:9 εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται παρ᾽ ὃ παρελάβετε, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.
If anyone preaches a Gospel to you contrary to that which you received, let him be cursed.
1:11 Γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ' ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον·
For I make known to you, brothers, the Gospel I have been preaching, that it is not according to man.
1:12 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτό οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην, ἀλλὰ δι' ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
For I received it not from man, nor was I taught (it), but through a revelation of Jesus Christ
1:15 Ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ
And when was pleased the one having set me apart from my mother’s womb and having called [me] through his grace
1:16 ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ, ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν,
to reveal his son in me, that I might preach him among the gentiles,
εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι,
I did not immediately consult (with) flesh and blood,
1:17 οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους, ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβίαν.
Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles prior to me, rather I went to Arabia.
2:1 Ἔπειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν ἀνέβην εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα συνπαραλαβὼν καὶ Τίτον·
Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem with Titus accompanying me.
2:2 ἀνέβην δὲ κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν· καὶ ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν,
And I went up according to a revelation and brought along the Gospel preached to the Gentiles.
2:3 ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ Τίτος ὁ σὺν ἐμοί, Ἕλλην ὤν, ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι·
But Titus who was with me, being Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised.
2:4 διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους, οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι
Because false brothers secreted in, who slipped in to spy on
τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ, ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν,[ Marcion read Χριστῷ for Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ without manuscript support, but the form is common in Marcion.]
the freedom we have in Christ, that they might enslave us,
2:5 οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγῇ, ἵνα ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
Not for an hour did we yield in subjugation that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you.
2:6 ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι, – ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει·
But from the ones seeming to be something – of what kind they once were matters nothing to me:
πρόσωπον [ὁ] θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει – ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο,
the face of man God does not accept – for me those seeming (to be something) added nothing
2:7 ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
But on the contrary having seeing I had been entrusted with the Gospel
2:9 καὶ γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, οἱ δοκοῦντες στύλοι εἶναι,
And realizing the grace having been given to me, those seeming to be pillars,
δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ κοινωνίας, ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη,
they gave the right hand to me of fellowship, that I might take these things to the gentiles
2:10 μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν, ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι.
Only that I remember the poor, as I was also eager to do this very thing.

I judged verses 1:13-14 as part of a later redaction, harmonizing to Acts. The original story was a flat out rejection of the stories of Paul being blinded (there is a whole "seeing" in the Marcionite and Gnostic revelation, while there is a "hearing" like Moses and the voice in the proto-Orthodox revelation stories, with each knowing about the other and making negative references in the text about it). His travelogue outline makes it clear he never went up to Damascus, rather went the other direction to Arabia (that is probably referring to Petra, which was in the Roman province of Arabia). There is also a rejection in the Marcionite and many Gnostic camps of the persecution story, and of the notion that Paul was a zealous Jew. Later Gnostics accepted the additional text and worked around it in similar ways to what you outline and call "Marcionite" interpretation. I would argue it is a post-Marcionite heterodox interpretation.

[rgprice]

But what is the basis for not including those verses?

[DCHindley]

Has anyone noticed that the likely sacred scripture alluded to refers to people destined to preach tomgentiles. Of course, Paul feels that someone like him is being referred to. Paul was hand picked by the Judean God to expand the ranks of those devoted to the Judean God to include gentiles.

Since I think that the Christological language is secondary to this idea, only three small snippets need be treated as interpolations. I have long advocated that long after Paul had exited the scene in the early 60s of the Christian Era, various collections of Paul's original writings on gentile inclusiveness, had been adapted by means of running commentary, by an editor who wanted to show how Paul was "really" a believer in an Anointed Heavenly Redeemer myth.

Geek	Inge	alluded verse in Geek [or my own comments in brackets]	Brenton's ET
1:13 Ἠκούσατε γὰρ τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ, ὅτι καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν,	1:13 For you have heard of my former life in the Judaean manner, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it;	[In my view, "Assembly of God" was how the original Paul referred to his gentile friends who hoped to somehow share the same blessed future land. FWIW, only Judeans had a Roman license to congregate in worship services, so these were probably associated with Judean synagogues in the Diaspora, which were commonly although not exclusively called "ekklesias." In normal Greek use, the term was used along with many others for official meetings.]
1:14 καὶ προέκοπτον ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ ὑπὲρ πολλοὺς συνηλικιώτας ἐν τῷ γένει μου, περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων.	1:14 and I advanced in the Judean way of life beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.	[My guess would be that Paul was at first disdainful of gentiles who may have revered the Judean God. I take this to suggest that Paul's own history may have involved a gentile proselyte, maybe his dad. Likely subjects would be Freedmen of a wealthy family, which I think was likely a Herodian prince, maybe Antipas the Tetrarch. His own status, either as the manumitted one himself or one of that person's descendants, the terms of the manumission apparently came with strings to the manumitting family, something often written into manumission contracts, and perhaps this included a paragraph or two about maintaining adherence to the "Judean way." The story of his vision that reveled to him that he was hand picked to carry out a cause for God himself, or how this may have impacted his relationship with his patron, is not expanded on here other than to say "If I were a man-pleaser, then I would not continue to be a slave." ]
1:15 Ὅτε δὲ *εὐδόκησεν ὁ [θεὸς ὁ]* ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καὶ καλέσας (Isa 49:1 OG; Jer 1:5 OG) διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ	1:15 But when *it pleased [God] the* (one) who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me (Isa 49:1; Jer 1:5) through his grace,	1:15) (most likely) Isa 49:1 (Brenton) προσέχετε ἔθνη διὰ χρόνου πολλοῦ στήσεται λέγει κύριος ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομά μου	1:15) (most likely) Isa 49:1 (Brenton) Hearken to me, ye islands; and attend, ye Gentiles; after a long time it shall come to pass, saith (the) Lord: from my mother's womb he has called my name:
		1:15) (alternative) Jer 1:5 (OG) πρὸ τοῦ με πλάσαι σε ἐν κοιλίᾳ ἐπίσταμαί σε καὶ πρὸ τοῦ σε ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ μήτρας ἡγίακά σε προφήτην εἰς ἔθνη τέθεικά σε	1:15) (alternative) Jer 1:5 (Brenton, slightly changed) Before I formed thee in (the) belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth from (thy) mother, I sanctified thee; a prophet to the nations I appointed thee.
1:16a ἀποκαλύψαι	1:16a to reveal
[1:16b τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ]	[1:16b his Son]
1:16c ἐν ἐμοί, ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι	1:16c by means of me, in order that I might proclaim Him as good news among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood,	[yes, this transition is a little awkward, suggesting that the later editor snipped something to replace the good news of Paul with that of an anointed divine redeemer of the editor's intended audience.]
1:17 οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους, ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβίαν καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν.	1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.	[I have taken "apostles" to refer to emissaries, authorized by the priesthood in the Temple at Jerusalem, with the duty of gathering goodwill offerings from afar for the benefit of the poor who visit the temple on pilgrimages. Historically, these offerings had been from Judeans in the diaspora, but Paul hoped to legitimize his gentile friends by finding priests who would accept offerings from gentiles on the same basis they would from other Judeans, at home or abroad. There seems to have been progressives, even among the priestly temple hierarchy.]	[The interpolator, on the other hand, thinks these should be the figures that were involved in Jesus' activities, Peter & James "his brother," basically a completely different set. One set is a Caiaphas, a James & a John, all pretty common Judean names, priestly officials in the temple hierarchy, and the competing set is a Peter, a James the brother of Jesus, and a John, who were immediate disciples of or relatives of Jesus the man whose life story had influenced the development of the Christ Myth.]
1:18 Ἔπειτα μετὰ ἔτη τρία ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν καὶ ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε,	1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.
1:19a ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον	1:19a But I saw none of the other apostles except James
[1:19b τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου.]	[1:19b the brother of the Lord.]
1:20 ἃ δὲ γράφω ὑμῖν, ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι.	1:20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)	[I think he may have been accused of being a grifter with no official appointment by temple authorities as an emissary (an apostle). "I am really a formally temple-appointed apostle!"]	[Other times I wonder if this verse is connected to 19b above, in which the later editor wants us to believe that the James Paul met with was actually Jesus' brother. "I swear!"]
1:21 Ἔπειτα ἦλθον εἰς τὰ κλίματα τῆς Συρίας καὶ τῆς Κιλικίας·	1:21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
1:22a ἤμην δὲ ἀγνοούμενος τῷ προσώπῳ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ἰουδαίας	1:22a And I was still not known by sight to the churches in Judea
[1:22b ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ.]	[1:22b which (are) in Christ;]
1:23 μόνον δὲ ἀκούοντες ἦσαν ὅτι ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ἥν ποτε ἐπόρθει,	1:23 they only heard it said, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy."
1:24 καὶ ἐδόξαζον ἐν ἐμοὶ τὸν θεόν.	1:24 And they glorified God because of me.

I am aware of the broader context, of course. IMHO, the original "Paul" knew nothing at all about Jesus or Anointed One (Christ). He only knew a "good news" where gentiles could participate equally along with Abraham's physical descendants, in God's promised inheritance of a super fruitful land, simply on the basis of displaying the same faith in the fulfilment of this promise as Abraham had, before any circumcision or Law was given to the physical descendants. What this interpolator had done to the Pauline corpus was reading into Paul's otherwise intact missiles on gentile inclusiveness by means of their faith, his own perspective that it was far far better to see this faith to be in a divine redeemer dubbed "Christ."

DCH